UK Defence Forum

Repulse wrote:I’ve said before, but I think the new Dreadnoughts should be built in larger numbers as hybrid SSBNs and SSGNs, though only in one role at any time (3 SSBNs and 3 SSGNs). It sounds fantasy but a fully loaded sub with Cruise Missiles is a Big Stick that would compliment perfectly or act independently from the CSG.

A VLS is becoming a must have on a new sub, the Americans are fitting extras to their new boats, and Saab are even offering VLS on their upcoming SSK. I think it's fairly safe to say a next gen British boat will have some kind of payload module.

Instead of building 2 more Dreadnought's, I will propose building follow on a shorter sub-class, with with all but 2 of the missile tubes removed for various payloads. We're investing such an incredible sum in this new class, we have to stretch out that investment a bit more, and get some extra boats out of the same design.

I do find your suggestion of dropping down to three SSBN's interesting; usually I would write off the idea because it removes the layer of redundancy required for a water tight full time deterrent. However if their is a sub-class that could provide that redundancy, is it then acceptable to drop down to thee boats?

shark bait wrote:However if their is a sub-class that could provide that redundancy, is it then acceptable to drop down to thee boats?

I believe so, yes. I'd also like to see a new SSN class with VLS, though of its just for TLAM I don't see the need for the size of the CMC. Maybe even 5 Dreadnoughts would do it, 3 on CASD and 2 on Conventional SSGN duties (1 deployed or ready to deploy within a week).

To all the ship building experts out there, is there a reason why you cannot design a sub with a single row of SLBM tubes down the middle of the hull? If there isn't, would a design to replace the Vanguards with six to eight tubes be sufficient for the UK. Such a design could be used for both CASD using Trident and as a SSGN using the six pack launchers the USN installed on a number of their Ohio class a while back. The latter would give a load out of between 36 and 28 TLAM which would be a step change in the UKs capability. A design with only six tubes would be small enough to also act as a hybrid SSN/SSGN so could be a follow on to the Astute class, especially if the Anti Ship Tomahawk re emerges in the USN as I am sure I have read it might somewhere. Just thinking outside the box a little.

There's no reason why not. The new Virginia class are getting a single row of silos down the back, so there's little reason why it couldn't be done on an SSBN.

Thing is, once the diameter is enough to fit in the length of a ICBM it's wide enough to fit another side by side, that's why they tend to come in pairs.

Either way its irrelevant, Dreadnought is Dreadnought and that isn't going to change now.

Thanks for the info.

Having a SSBN?GN so close to the coast is a bad idea. Ok Tactom has a 1200 mile range (the figure that seems to get kicked around in the US forums) but if you really want to reach out and touch the deep strike targets that means your sub has to be in shallower inshore waters (ie at the continental shelf) rather than lurking as a lack hole in the abyss. It opens your CASD up to easy tracking and prosecution. SSN are really the best at this. The Oscars and to a lesser extent Charlies were designed to be CVN/SAG killers with coordinated air strikes from the Backfires. When this stopped to be the Soviet MO they were tied up. Big subs trying to prosecute inshore targets need to be able to hide, something they cant in the near littoral.

jimthelad wrote:but if you really want to reach out and touch the deep strike targets that means your sub has to be in shallower inshore waters (ie at the continental shelf) rather than lurking as a lack hole in the abyss.

A fair point, but sitting two hundred miles of the coast still gives plenty of ocean to hide in (even when those areas with extensive continental shelves are taken into consideration) and an overland range of 1000 miles covers a huge part of the world's surface, particularly when you consider that he majority of the World's megacities are oceanfront and about 80% of the world's population lives within 60 miles of the coast. What's left can be dealt with by other means, I guess.

jimthelad wrote:It opens your CASD up to easy tracking and prosecution.

We are talking separate subs doing the SSGN role to the CASD, same design mind but no mixing of roles at one time.

Electric Boat talking at SAS2018 on the new US SSBN 566 feet long Columbia, saying achieved 85% completion of computer aided model and 25% disclosures/electronic drawings, started build of hull with missile compartment in co-operation with UK, MOD/BAE/Subs, mention of Dreadnought further ahead in build.

Have seen no info. on the new generation quieter propulsion system for Dreadnought with IEP, by removing the noisy gearbox . RR have invested in new tech magnetic gears, if they have chosen this system for Dreadnought hope the R&D more robust than with the Type 45 IEP/WR-21 GTs, otherwise it could turn out very, very expensive.

Columbia was delayed because of a manufacturing defect as some of the components for the pre-production motor were not properly insulated, guessing the DRS 36.5 MW PMM originally developed for Zumwalt (not chosen for Zumwalt as USN thought as not mature at the time), Columbia program said to be back on target . No knowledge of Dreadnought electric motor, may be a GE Power Conversion (pre. Alstom) though understand GE in January proposed making 1,100 redundancies from its 2,800 workforce, they manufacture the new electric motors for the Type 26.

Good news on the Vanguard (and Astute) reactor cores. Looks like Vanguards was replaced unnecessarily in the end, but good news for the rest..

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-reli ... efuelling/

Timmymagic wrote:Good news on the Vanguard (and Astute) reactor cores. Looks like Vanguards was replaced unnecessarily in the end, but good news for the rest..

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/a-reli ... efuelling/

Well, a happy end to the long saga:
- Controversially, government delayed making this announcement (about the problem) to Parliament until March 2014.
- This extra cost "A further £150 million had to be spent on reactor infrastructure at Devonport and the Rolls Royce facility in Derby so as to retain the ability to manufacture Core H potentially, for HMS Victorious and the other two boats. These additional expenses were met from contingency funds" was negligible compared to the fact that it held back the planned core production (delay vs. plans at its worst 51 months)
- Are we surprised, then, that Boat 7 was suddenly - with the "All Clear" - cleared for take off (in its construction): "Had a serious issue with Core H been identified, it could also have had implications for the Astute class submarines, which use the same design."... catching up with the delay was served as "great news"

Sorry to have stated (on these pages) that the sudden reduction in the reactor cores' delays (from 51 to 8 months) was down to the MoD being allowed to 'mark its own homework'... when there was a genuine improvement!
- the fact that the news were suppressed, and the (reversal of) consequences were released first (as new news) of course makes it even more worthwhile to have a sharp eye and read publications released side by side - as the discrepancies seem to contain the real changes (most often )

Not sure if Astute or Vanguard class was involved, but:

https://navaltoday.com/2019/01/22/royal ... irish-sea/

It can't have been of the Class that can hear when Queen Mary starts her engines in New York

I suppose it depends how you define a "Near miss"?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:It can't have been of the Class that can hear when Queen Mary starts her engines in New York

Except if something like this happened:





( just kidding )

On Monday 29th July 2019, the new PM and Defence Secretary visited Faslane and went aboard HMS Victorious.






(Photos: Navy Lookout)

That's them being scrapped next year then

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

I wonder if he hand delivered the "Final Orders" letters?

This
August 3, 2019 (StRN)
"Critical Royal Navy submarine refit running late

The oldest of the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, HMS Vanguard is currently in Devonport undergoing major refit and refuelling. There are strong indications the project is in trouble and she will be unable to return to service at the start of 2020 as originally scheduled, with knock-on effects for the 3 remaining boats that maintain the nuclear deterrent."

should stop this (or the next!) Gvmnt from reopening the discussion on whether three boats (instead of 4) should be 'just fine' when the Successors are built.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:This
August 3, 2019 (StRN)
"Critical Royal Navy submarine refit running late

The oldest of the Royal Navy’s ballistic missile submarines, HMS Vanguard is currently in Devonport undergoing major refit and refuelling. There are strong indications the project is in trouble and she will be unable to return to service at the start of 2020 as originally scheduled, with knock-on effects for the 3 remaining boats that maintain the nuclear deterrent."

should stop this (or the next!) Gvmnt from reopening the discussion on whether three boats (instead of 4) should be 'just fine' when the Successors are built.

Well, if the common sense won't do it, I doubt that any refit will help. The main problems are nuclear disarmament lobby and Labour party (especially under Corbyn).

abc123 wrote: The main problems are nuclear disarmament lobby and Labour party (especially under Corbyn).

The Coalition went through all kinds of 'motions'... to make sure that all were happy about "alternatives" having been fully looked into.
- LibDems and Labour are not that far apart in the latest polls?

ArmChairCivvy wrote:

abc123 wrote: The main problems are nuclear disarmament lobby and Labour party (especially under Corbyn).

The Coalition went through all kinds of 'motions'... to make sure that all were happy about "alternatives" having been fully looked into.
- LibDems and Labour are not that far apart in the latest polls?

Yeep, I remember. Now, is there any other country, US, France, Russia, China..- with such destructive behaviour towards nuclear deterrence?

Well if Labour get in our CASD will probably be reduced to that of most of our capabilities, that being we have it but lack the capacity for it to be truly effective. We could end up with only three boats each with a maximum of say four D5s on board and each of these with only half a dozen actual warheads plus decoys etc. Yes it would still be a deterrent, but with no depth and maybe small enough that someone may risk calling our bluff.

Lord Jim wrote:We could end up with only three boats each with a maximum of say four D5s on board and each of these with only half a dozen actual warheads plus decoys etc. Yes it would still be a deterrent, but with no depth and maybe small enough that someone may risk calling our bluff.

and would still cost 90% as much as present costs...